RYAN ALEXANDER BROWN v. THE STATE OF WYOMING
S-20-0281
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING
June 29, 2021
2021 WY 79
APRIL TERM, A.D. 2021
Appeal from the District Court of Albany County
The Honorable Tori R.A. Kricken, Judge
Representing Appellant:
Ryan Alexander Brown, Pro Se.
Representing Appellee:
Bridget L. Hill, Wyoming Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Deputy Attorney General; Joshua C. Eames, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Timothy P. Zintak, Senior Assistant Attorney General.
Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
[¶1] Ryan Alexander Brown, appearing pro se, challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence and issuance of a nunc pro tunc judgment conforming his written sentence to the court’s oral pronouncement at his sentencing hearing. Mr. Brown also asserts he was entitled to a sentencing hearing before the court could issue the nunc pro tunc judgment. We conclude the district court properly corrected Mr. Brown’s written sentence without a hearing, and the sentence complies with Wyoming law. We therefore affirm.
ISSUE
[¶2] Did the district court err when it issued a nunc pro tunc judgment conforming the written sentence to the oral sentence without holding a hearing, and determined the corrected written sentence was proper under Wyoming law?
FACTS
[¶3] Mr. Brown was convicted of conspiracy to commit first degree murder in 2015. We detailed the facts of the case in Brown v. State, 2016 WY 107, 383 P.3d 631 (Wyo. 2016), and need not do so here.
[¶4] The district court sentenced Mr. Brown to life in prison under
So for the record, the [c]ourt will enter sentence as follows: The [c]ourt will order a term of incarceration with the Department of Corrections for a term of natural life, according to law. And so there is no misunderstanding, that is life with the possibility of parole at some point in the future.
[¶5] The court’s written judgment and sentence provided:
[T]he Defendant, RYAN ALEXANDER BROWN, shall be committed to the custody of the Department of Corrections and is sentenced to serve a term of incarceration in the Wyoming State Penitentiary, or an alternative correctional facility to be determined at the discretion of the Department of Corrections,
of the length of his natural life, with the possibility of parole.
(Emphasis added.)
[¶6] In November 2020, Mr. Brown filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence claiming
[T]he Defendant . . . is sentenced to serve a term of incarceration in the Wyoming State Penitentiary, or an alternative correctional facility to be determined at the discretion of the Department of Corrections, of the length of his natural life, according to law.
[¶7] Mr. Brown appealed both the order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence and the nunc pro tunc judgment. He argues the district court improperly used a nunc pro tunc judgment to change rather than correct his written sentence; because the court changed his sentence he had a right to have and be present at a sentencing hearing; and his sentence, even as corrected in the nunc pro tunc judgment, is illegal under
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[¶8] Whether the district court properly entered the nunc pro tunc judgment, and whether Mr. Brown’s sentence is illegal are questions of law we review de novo. See Heinemann v. State, 2018 WY 31, ¶ 8, 413 P.3d 644, 646 (Wyo. 2018); Newnham v. State, 2021 WY 54, ¶ 3, 484 P.3d 1275, 1276 (Wyo. 2021).
DISCUSSION
[¶9] “An illegal sentence is one that exceeds statutory limits, imposes multiple terms of imprisonment for the same offense, or otherwise violates the constitution or the law.” Wanberg v. State, 2020 WY 75, ¶ 28, 466 P.3d 269, 275 (Wyo. 2020) (citing Palomo v. State, 2018 WY 42, ¶ 24, 415 P.3d 700, 705–06 (Wyo. 2018)). If a discrepancy exists between the district court’s oral pronouncement and its written order, “the oral pronouncement prevails.” Id. (quoting Palomo, ¶ 26, 415 P.3d at 706). A written sentence that is inconsistent with the oral pronouncement is not necessarily illegal, but its inaccuracy must be corrected. Id. (citing Palomo, ¶ 27, 415 P.3d at 706).
[¶10]
[¶11] Mr. Brown claims the district court improperly used the nunc pro tunc judgment to change, rather than correct, his sentence. We disagree. The district court’s oral pronouncement of Mr. Brown’s sentence—a “term of natural life, according to law”—prevailed over his written sentence from the outset, and the nunc pro tunc judgment simply conformed Mr. Brown’s written sentence to the court’s oral pronouncement. Mr. Brown’s sentence was and remains “life imprisonment according to law.” The nunc pro tunc judgment was proper.
[¶12] There being no change in his sentence, Mr. Brown had no constitutional right to a sentencing hearing. See Heinemann, ¶ 16, 413 P.3d at 648 (“[P]rovided the district court’s action involves only correction of a clerical mistake, no due process violation occurs when the correction is made without
[¶13] Lastly, in his motion to correct an illegal sentence, Mr. Brown argued the terms “natural life” and “the possibility of parole” made his written sentence illegal under Hartley v. State, 460 P.3d 716 (Wyo. 2020). In Hartley we determined a sentence of life in prison “with the opportunity for parole” was illegal for a first-degree felony murder conviction. Id. ¶ 17, 460 P.3d at 721.
Life in prison “with the opportunity for parole” was not an option. See id.
[¶14] Mr. Brown’s written sentence, as originally worded, arguably ran afoul of Hartley in that it referred to “the possibility of parole.” But the oral pronouncement of his sentence did not, and the written sentence has now been lawfully corrected.
[¶15] Mr. Brown contends his sentence nevertheless is illegal because
[¶16] Affirmed.